Religion, disease and the First Amendment

Discussion of the recent unfolding of history.

Religion, disease and the First Amendment

Postby iambiguous » Tue Dec 01, 2020 8:47 pm

Religion, disease and the First Amendment

https://www.nytimes.com/2020/11/30/opin ... e=Homepage

It may take a terrorist attack, a war or some other national emergency, but America will one day thank Justice Neil Gorsuch for his stirring words last week in Roman Catholic Diocese of Brooklyn v. Cuomo. “Government,” he wrote in a concurrence to the 5-4 majority opinion, “is not free to disregard the First Amendment in times of crisis.”

The case arises from restrictions Andrew Cuomo imposed by executive order in October that sharply limit attendance at houses of worship in zones designated by the New York governor as pandemic hot spots. In so-called orange zones, attendance is capped at 25 people; in red zones, at 10. That goes for churches and synagogues that can seat hundreds and that were already limiting attendance, barring singing, practicing social distancing and taking other precautions.


Okay, imagine if the HIV AIDS virus was able to be transmitted to others just as easily [and stealthily] as the coronavirus. You didn't have to copulate with someone or share dope needles with them to be infected. No, you only had to be in the same room with them when they sneezed or touched a doorknob that they touched. And no vaccine in sight.

Would that constitute a "crisis" great enough to persuade Bret Stephens and his ilk to allow for government restrictions regarding religious gatherings?

Same with masks and social distancing and lockdowns.

What disease in what set of circumstances would it take to make you question your own fanatical assumptions that everything revolves around "me, myself and I"?
He was like a man who wanted to change all; and could not; so burned with his impotence; and had only me, an infinitely small microcosm to convert or detest. John Fowles

Start here: viewtopic.php?f=1&t=176529
Then here: viewtopic.php?f=15&t=185296
And here: viewtopic.php?f=1&t=194382
User avatar
iambiguous
ILP Legend
 
Posts: 39788
Joined: Tue Nov 16, 2010 8:03 pm
Location: baltimore maryland

Re: Religion, disease and the First Amendment

Postby obsrvr524 » Tue Dec 01, 2020 9:36 pm

This is only an issue of who has higher authority - religion or state.

Imagine if the reverse was true (and it often has been - and still is). Imagine that it was the State saying that people MUST gather in groups while a religious order was saying "NO! There is a disease that will cause those to die!"

You would probably side with the State against the religious decree. The religion might well be using science evidence for its claim. The State will invariably be using only political maneuvering for its claim for more power. But you hate anything religion associated so of course you would stand up for the State.

And now you stand up for the State even though there is no science to backup their restrictions. They allow for large gatherings as long as they are not religious. That is a power play not an act of rational science.

The US Constitution foresaw this situation long ago. The State will ALWAYS seek maximum power over people. By allowing a variety of religions (and it does require that a variety be permitted) neither the State nor any one religion can usurp total power over all people.

So in the US it is up to the religions to limit their own gatherings and up to the State to limit theirs. Neither has authority over the other.

Both will save people and both will cause death to people. That will never change.
Member of The Coalition of Truth - member #1

              You have been observed.
    Though often tempted to encourage a dog to distinguish color I refuse to argue with him about it
obsrvr524
Philosopher
 
Posts: 1836
Joined: Thu Jul 11, 2019 9:03 am

Re: Religion, disease and the First Amendment

Postby iambiguous » Tue Dec 01, 2020 10:58 pm

obsrvr524 wrote: This is only an issue of who has higher authority - religion or state.


Well, the authority of the state rests on the actual existence of a government. The authority of a religion rests on the extent to which the ecclesiastics can convince their flocks to embrace a faith in the existence of their own God and not the hundreds and hundreds of others.

obsrvr524 wrote: Imagine if the reverse was true (and it often has been - and still is). Imagine that it was the State saying that people MUST gather in groups while a religious order was saying "NO! There is a disease that will cause those to die!"


But this particular op-ed is focused on the extent to which religious rights take precedence given a particular "crisis". I changed the crisis. The op-ed seemed to suggest that there was no actual existential crisis that would justify state intervention. That's dangerous objectivist thinking from my point of view.

obsrvr524 wrote: You would probably side with the State against the religious decree. The religion might well be using science evidence for its claim. The State will invariably be using only political maneuvering for its claim for more power. But you hate anything religion associated so of course you would stand up for the State.


Again, given what context? What scientific evidence in regard to what religious claim? And my argument is that the "best of all possible worlds" politically is one that revolves around democracy and the rule of laws. And certainly in regard to religion. Ah, but that's often complex and convoluted, isn't it? What if "one of them" has the power? Too problematic, right? Which is what the "spiritual" objectivists would make go away by insisting that their own rendition of the state would revolve around securing and then sustaining laws and policies entirely in sync with their own religious values.

So, for millions of Americans that means Christian fundamentalism. Are you one of them?

Or are you a proponent of the JSS "Real God"?

Whatever the fuck "for all practical purposes" that is.
He was like a man who wanted to change all; and could not; so burned with his impotence; and had only me, an infinitely small microcosm to convert or detest. John Fowles

Start here: viewtopic.php?f=1&t=176529
Then here: viewtopic.php?f=15&t=185296
And here: viewtopic.php?f=1&t=194382
User avatar
iambiguous
ILP Legend
 
Posts: 39788
Joined: Tue Nov 16, 2010 8:03 pm
Location: baltimore maryland

Re: Religion, disease and the First Amendment

Postby Peter Kropotkin » Tue Dec 01, 2020 11:40 pm

let me preface this with my own feeling...

I do believe that religion is not only useless but
is downright dangerous....

as far as I can tell, nothing useful or good has ever, ever come
out of a religion.. so we know my base line.....

I reject the idea that we should hold religion to a higher or a different
standard then other aspects of our lives... we cannot, cannot
allow religion to somehow be superior to our day to day lives...
it isn't free speech and it isn't something that we should hold
dearer then our lives....to allow one's religion to be
a greater factor then our lives is to invite great public danger....

an example of this is the terrible Supreme court "hobby lobby" decision....
to allow people to hold their own religious beliefs over one's health
and other people is the road to danger and I reject it....

just because you hold some religious belief doesn't trump my rights
as an individual....I hold the right to live, liberty and the pursuit of
happiness... but just as I hold that you cannot supersede my rights
with your religions, I cannot supersede your rights with any religious
or as the case may be, no religious believes....

you cannot put my life in danger because of your religious beliefs...
and I cannot put your life in danger because of my or not, religious beliefs.....

freedom of speech is a poor example of that give the religious rights
over other people...

the right is using religious beliefs to threaten my life.. and I don't
think that is right.........

I view this as just another example of religion endangering my life...
example abounds that religion needs to be done with and ended.....

but I am a lonely voice in the wilderness... and I shall continue to
attack and attempt to end the tyranny of religion...

Kropotkin
PK IS EVIL.....
Peter Kropotkin
ILP Legend
 
Posts: 8924
Joined: Thu Apr 07, 2005 1:47 am
Location: blue state

Re: Religion, disease and the First Amendment

Postby Gloominary » Wed Dec 02, 2020 12:50 pm

If Antifa/BLM have the right to gather for our health then Christians, beachgoers and whomever, whenever, wherever have the right to gather for our psychosocial and physical health.
If Antifa/BLM have the right to riot then by their logic rightwing activists have the right to riot.
The people pushing the Covid hoax the most i.e. far left activists disguised as health experts, journalists and moderates, obviously don't care about our health, or civility, or civilization, at least as we know it.
What they care about is Agenda 2030/the Great Reset/uncivilization.

Don't you get it?
They've broken the social contract.
They don't get to tell us what to do anymore.
If rightwing activists burn buildings and beat people up, the far left activists disguised as health experts, journalists and moderates have absolutely no grounds on which to condemn them.

Chris Cuomo: 'show me where it says protests are supposed to be polite and peaceful' (in response to condemnation of the Antifa/BLM riots)?
User avatar
Gloominary
Philosopher
 
Posts: 3293
Joined: Sun Feb 05, 2017 5:58 am
Location: Canada

Re: Religion, disease and the First Amendment

Postby iambiguous » Wed Dec 02, 2020 8:07 pm

Gloominary wrote:If Antifa/BLM have the right to gather for our health then Christians, beachgoers and whomever, whenever, wherever have the right to gather for our psychosocial and physical health.
If Antifa/BLM have the right to riot then by their logic rightwing activists have the right to riot.
The people pushing the Covid hoax the most i.e. far left activists disguised as health experts, journalists and moderates, obviously don't care about our health, or civility, or civilization, at least as we know it.
What they care about is Agenda 2030/the Great Reset/uncivilization.
Don't you get it?
They've broken the social contract.
They don't get to tell us what to do anymore.
If rightwing activists burn buildings and beat people up, the far left activists disguised as health experts, journalists and moderates have absolutely no grounds on which to condemn them.

Chris Cuomo: 'show me where it says protests are supposed to be polite and peaceful' (in response to condemnation of the Antifa/BLM riots)?


Again, from my frame of mind, this is the sort of rabid histrionics we can always expect from extremist ideologues who see the world only as they insist everyone else must see it...or be condemned as "one of them".

Sure, there are points that, in one or another context, may be applicable. Just as in another context the same accusations can be reasonably noted in regard to rightwing fanatics.

But the point of this thread is to focus on free speech, religion and disease given a crisis in which the coronavirus resulted in the symptoms of AIDS, was even more able to transmitted to others and with no vaccine in sight.

What of the rationality of the government imposing tighter restrictions on citizens then?

Also, to what extent is he willing to explore with me the manner in which I construe ideologues of all self-righteous persuasions as embracing political prejudices rooted subjectively in the manner in which I explore my own prejudices in the OP here: https://www.ilovephilosophy.com/viewtop ... 1&t=194382

Or is the "psychology of objectivism" too tightly wound up in his need to feel self-righteous in regard to this and every other context in which there are conflicting goods.
He was like a man who wanted to change all; and could not; so burned with his impotence; and had only me, an infinitely small microcosm to convert or detest. John Fowles

Start here: viewtopic.php?f=1&t=176529
Then here: viewtopic.php?f=15&t=185296
And here: viewtopic.php?f=1&t=194382
User avatar
iambiguous
ILP Legend
 
Posts: 39788
Joined: Tue Nov 16, 2010 8:03 pm
Location: baltimore maryland

Re: Religion, disease and the First Amendment

Postby obsrvr524 » Wed Dec 02, 2020 8:28 pm

iambiguous wrote:rabid histrionics we can always expect from extremist ideologues who see the world only as they insist everyone else must see it...or be condemned as "one of them".

You mean like yourself - exactly like yourself.

Is hypocrisy just a habit with you?
Member of The Coalition of Truth - member #1

              You have been observed.
    Though often tempted to encourage a dog to distinguish color I refuse to argue with him about it
obsrvr524
Philosopher
 
Posts: 1836
Joined: Thu Jul 11, 2019 9:03 am

Re: Religion, disease and the First Amendment

Postby Urwrongx1000 » Wed Dec 02, 2020 8:48 pm

Gloominary wrote:Don't you get it?
They've broken the social contract.
They don't get to tell us what to do anymore.
If rightwing activists burn buildings and beat people up, the far left activists disguised as health experts, journalists and moderates have absolutely no grounds on which to condemn them.

Abso-fucking-lutely
Urwrongx1000
Philosopher
 
Posts: 4396
Joined: Mon Jun 19, 2017 5:10 pm

Re: Religion, disease and the First Amendment

Postby iambiguous » Wed Dec 02, 2020 9:10 pm

obsrvr524 wrote:
iambiguous wrote:rabid histrionics we can always expect from extremist ideologues who see the world only as they insist everyone else must see it...or be condemned as "one of them".

You mean like yourself - exactly like yourself.

Is hypocrisy just a habit with you?


First, let's get back to this from above:

obsrvr524 wrote: This is only an issue of who has higher authority - religion or state.


iambiguous wrote: Well, the authority of the state rests on the actual existence of a government. The authority of a religion rests on the extent to which the ecclesiastics can convince their flocks to embrace a faith in the existence of their own God and not the hundreds and hundreds of others.


obsrvr524 wrote: Imagine if the reverse was true (and it often has been - and still is). Imagine that it was the State saying that people MUST gather in groups while a religious order was saying "NO! There is a disease that will cause those to die!"


iambiguous wrote:But this particular op-ed is focused on the extent to which religious rights take precedence given a particular "crisis". I changed the crisis. The op-ed seemed to suggest that there was no actual existential crisis that would justify state intervention. That's dangerous objectivist thinking from my point of view.


obsrvr524 wrote: You would probably side with the State against the religious decree. The religion might well be using science evidence for its claim. The State will invariably be using only political maneuvering for its claim for more power. But you hate anything religion associated so of course you would stand up for the State.


iambiguous wrote:Again, given what context? What scientific evidence in regard to what religious claim? And my argument is that the "best of all possible worlds" politically is one that revolves around democracy and the rule of laws. And certainly in regard to religion. Ah, but that's often complex and convoluted, isn't it? What if "one of them" has the power? Too problematic, right? Which is what the "spiritual" objectivists would make go away by insisting that their own rendition of the state would revolve around securing and then sustaining laws and policies entirely in sync with their own religious values.

So, for millions of Americans that means Christian fundamentalism. Are you one of them?

Or are you a proponent of the JSS "Real God"?

Whatever the fuck "for all practical purposes" that is.


And I don't engage in "rabid histrionics" to make my point. If you think otherwise, note examples of it. And how can I possibly be a hypocrite when I note time and again that my own value judgments here are rooted subjectively in my own existential contraptions derived from dasein. Ever and always subjective to change given new experiences, relationships and access to ideas.

What troubles you instead, given my experience with objectivists over the years, is that, in my own subjective opinion, your own precious SELF is on the line here. What if I am closer to what is in fact true about human identity in the is/ought world and you can no longer cling to your own equally precious Theory Of Everything.
He was like a man who wanted to change all; and could not; so burned with his impotence; and had only me, an infinitely small microcosm to convert or detest. John Fowles

Start here: viewtopic.php?f=1&t=176529
Then here: viewtopic.php?f=15&t=185296
And here: viewtopic.php?f=1&t=194382
User avatar
iambiguous
ILP Legend
 
Posts: 39788
Joined: Tue Nov 16, 2010 8:03 pm
Location: baltimore maryland

Re: Religion, disease and the First Amendment

Postby iambiguous » Wed Dec 02, 2020 9:11 pm

Urwrongx1000 wrote:
Gloominary wrote:Don't you get it?
They've broken the social contract.
They don't get to tell us what to do anymore.
If rightwing activists burn buildings and beat people up, the far left activists disguised as health experts, journalists and moderates have absolutely no grounds on which to condemn them.

Abso-fucking-lutely


Also, abso-fucking-lutely typical of what I'd expect from you.
He was like a man who wanted to change all; and could not; so burned with his impotence; and had only me, an infinitely small microcosm to convert or detest. John Fowles

Start here: viewtopic.php?f=1&t=176529
Then here: viewtopic.php?f=15&t=185296
And here: viewtopic.php?f=1&t=194382
User avatar
iambiguous
ILP Legend
 
Posts: 39788
Joined: Tue Nov 16, 2010 8:03 pm
Location: baltimore maryland

Re: Religion, disease and the First Amendment

Postby Meno_ » Wed Dec 02, 2020 9:50 pm

Psychologically speaking, you guys projecting and introjecting all over the place, could try some type of common ground.

The mud slinging may be. coming from subjective sourced simulations, masked as politically correct abstractions., without the expected descriptions via semantic manipulations to push some faux-objevtivity.
Meno_
breathless
 
Posts: 8073
Joined: Tue Dec 08, 2015 2:39 am
Location: Mysterium Tremendum

Re: Religion, disease and the First Amendment

Postby iambiguous » Wed Dec 02, 2020 10:52 pm

Meno_ wrote:Psychologically speaking, you guys projecting and introjecting all over the place, could try some type of common ground.

The mud slinging may be. coming from subjective sourced simulations, masked as politically correct abstractions., without the expected descriptions via semantic manipulations to push some faux-objevtivity.


We'll need a context, of course. How about the OP?

Oh, I forgot, you don't do contexts. You only do obscure intellectual contraptions. :wink:
He was like a man who wanted to change all; and could not; so burned with his impotence; and had only me, an infinitely small microcosm to convert or detest. John Fowles

Start here: viewtopic.php?f=1&t=176529
Then here: viewtopic.php?f=15&t=185296
And here: viewtopic.php?f=1&t=194382
User avatar
iambiguous
ILP Legend
 
Posts: 39788
Joined: Tue Nov 16, 2010 8:03 pm
Location: baltimore maryland

Re: Religion, disease and the First Amendment

Postby Gloominary » Thu Dec 03, 2020 12:40 am

Gloominary wrote:If Antifa/BLM have the right to gather for our health then Christians, beachgoers and whomever, whenever, wherever have the right to gather for our psychosocial and physical health.
If Antifa/BLM have the right to riot then by their logic rightwing activists have the right to riot.
The people pushing the Covid hoax the most i.e. far left activists disguised as health experts, journalists and moderates, obviously don't care about our health, or civility, or civilization, at least as we know it.
What they care about is Agenda 2030/the Great Reset/uncivilization.

Don't you get it?
They've broken the social contract.
They don't get to tell us what to do anymore.
If rightwing activists burn buildings and beat people up, the far left activists disguised as health experts, journalists and moderates have absolutely no grounds on which to condemn them.

Chris Cuomo: 'show me where it says protests are supposed to be polite and peaceful' (in response to condemnation of the Antifa/BLM riots)?

Don't get me wrong, I'm not saying the Proud Boys should burn buildings down, and beat people up, unless it's in self-defenses.
Just saying CNN, MSNBC, the health experts and all public figures who made excuses for Antifa/BLM breaking Covid restrictions to protest, riot and tear down monuments, have exposed themselves as far left activists, losing virtually all credibility.
Some far left activist politicians even participated in the rioting.
I see no reason to take the health experts seriously after this, clearly public health is at the bottom of their list of priorities, in fact, I think they mean us harm.
Last edited by Gloominary on Thu Dec 03, 2020 12:49 am, edited 1 time in total.
User avatar
Gloominary
Philosopher
 
Posts: 3293
Joined: Sun Feb 05, 2017 5:58 am
Location: Canada

Re: Religion, disease and the First Amendment

Postby Karpel Tunnel » Thu Dec 03, 2020 12:48 am

Peter Kropotkin wrote:as far as I can tell, nothing useful or good has ever, ever come
out of a religion.. so we know my base line.....
Kropotkin

So, setting aside the objectivist assertions - which while qualified in terms of certainty are objectivist as evaluations from an objective moral perspective -, you seemed to be mentioning both MLK and Ghandi in a positive light elsewhere and their approaches were driven clearly and consciously by religion. And since your on the Left Liberation Theology and the priests and their movements in Latin America against fascist regimes. Even Jesus seemed to be being put forward there, in the condescending (but not angry or hateful?!) lecture to Unwrong, as a postive role model. And in case there's any question about it, he is a religious leader, in this case drawing his whole philosophy from Judaism.
Karpel Tunnel
Philosopher
 
Posts: 3625
Joined: Wed Jan 10, 2018 12:26 pm

Re: Religion, disease and the First Amendment

Postby obsrvr524 » Thu Dec 03, 2020 2:34 pm

I can't believe I'm actually participating in an iambiguous thread. :-?

iambiguous wrote:Well, the authority of the state rests on the actual existence of a government. The authority of a religion rests on the extent to which the ecclesiastics can convince their flocks to embrace a faith in the existence of their own God and not the hundreds and hundreds of others.

Both organizations require the same kind of belief that they speak for the power that is. There is no significant difference in their means or methods except the modern Western religious means tend to exclude military force. You just like one more than the other - your subjective opinion.

iambiguous wrote:my argument is that the "best of all possible worlds" politically is one that revolves around democracy and the rule of laws.

And the "rule of law" is that religious worship is NOT to be prohibited from free exercise.

So by your own words, your argument for "best of all worlds" is that the religions are to be free to worship as they (subjectively) see fit.

iambiguous wrote:What if "one of them" has the power? Too problematic, right? Which is what the "spiritual" objectivists would make go away by insisting that their own rendition of the state would revolve around securing and then sustaining laws and policies entirely in sync with their own religious values.
obsrvr524 wrote:The US Constitution foresaw this situation long ago. The State will ALWAYS seek maximum power over people. By allowing a variety of religions (and it does require that a variety be permitted) neither the State nor any one religion can usurp total power over all people.

So in the US it is up to the religions to limit their own gatherings and up to the State to limit theirs. Neither has authority over the other.

Both will save people and both will cause death to people. That will never change.

You are constantly proposing this dilemma of "conflicting goods", subjectivism, dasein, and "what if they are wrong". The US Constitution seems to agree. The USC proclaims that NEITHER is ordained as (objectively) right or wrong.

So I don't see exactly what you are still whining about. Your opinion isn't being taken as more objectively true than theirs? You seem to be arguing with yourself about yourself - proliferating "dasein".
Member of The Coalition of Truth - member #1

              You have been observed.
    Though often tempted to encourage a dog to distinguish color I refuse to argue with him about it
obsrvr524
Philosopher
 
Posts: 1836
Joined: Thu Jul 11, 2019 9:03 am

Re: Religion, disease and the First Amendment

Postby Meno_ » Thu Dec 03, 2020 5:14 pm

I merely see this 'conflict' of gods as an abject denial of transcendencial logic, even though the application of social theory (Marxism), has failed to nihilizers it by demonstration
(Or to give a material foundation for it)

So the argument , as he presents it , in the particular generic way he does, in my opinion, at least, is based on atautological premise .

Such argument is like a closed circle, that allows for NL counter argument.

It disregards Heidegger's own analysis of the rhetorical question around his own intended meaning of Dasein

And I don't think I may be wring here.
Meno_
breathless
 
Posts: 8073
Joined: Tue Dec 08, 2015 2:39 am
Location: Mysterium Tremendum

Re: Religion, disease and the First Amendment

Postby Peter Kropotkin » Thu Dec 03, 2020 5:47 pm

Karpel Tunnel wrote:
Peter Kropotkin wrote:as far as I can tell, nothing useful or good has ever, ever come
out of a religion.. so we know my base line.....
Kropotkin

So, setting aside the objectivist assertions - which while qualified in terms of certainty are objectivist as evaluations from an objective moral perspective -, you seemed to be mentioning both MLK and Ghandi in a positive light elsewhere and their approaches were driven clearly and consciously by religion. And since your on the Left Liberation Theology and the priests and their movements in Latin America against fascist regimes. Even Jesus seemed to be being put forward there, in the condescending (but not angry or hateful?!) lecture to Unwrong, as a postive role model. And in case there's any question about it, he is a religious leader, in this case drawing his whole philosophy from Judaism.



K: so, you wonder why I put forward religious leaders as possible role models when
I myself despise religion?

the idea of a role model has been lost in America... personally, I have very few
role models, but with that said, I can see the need for role models....
look out into the world, who, right now, would you say is being a role
model for the rest of us? I don't see anyone.. so I reach a little further
back and I find MLK and Gandhi...and yes, the central point of their beliefs
lie within religion...as mine does not....

but that doesn't mean we cannot use them as role models...

whereas think about IQ45... can we use him in any way, shape or form,
as a role model for example, our children? recall, I am a parent....(now granted
my daughter is older then a lot of people here, including UR) but I am still
a parent in which many of you are not...would I use IQ45 behavior, actions,
words, or tweets as the basis of making him a role model?

no, not at all, in fact, he would represent the opposite of what I taught
my daughter and he is the opposite of what most people teach their children
of being a role model....

and to be kind, IQ45 is a reprehensible person as well as a disgraceful president.....

no morals or standards of any kind and that is my point countering with MLK
or Gandhi or even Jesus as role models as all of them had morals and standards
and fought for something greater then themselves.... which IQ45 calls being
about "losers and suckers"......

I am working toward someone becoming aware of who they are and seeing if
they are working toward MLK or Gandhi as possible role models.. regardless of
the religious context..

they made a difference and so can you, if you think of yourself as a higher being,
not as a animal or as a being who exists on a lower level....

now as a second point, in my "condescending" lecture to UR.. he reminds of a
6 year old having a tantrum.... I sometimes wonder if he is even still in high school?

I don't see any patience or any sort of thoughtful thinking one sees in an adult
which is why I don't treat him like an adult, he isn't...

Kropotkin
PK IS EVIL.....
Peter Kropotkin
ILP Legend
 
Posts: 8924
Joined: Thu Apr 07, 2005 1:47 am
Location: blue state

Re: Religion, disease and the First Amendment

Postby Zero_Sum » Thu Dec 03, 2020 8:34 pm

Peter would be one of those Russian Bolsheviks closing down the Orthodox churches and banning religion in the public sphere under the state, am I right?
User avatar
Zero_Sum
Special Commisar Joker
 
Posts: 4100
Joined: Thu Nov 30, 2017 7:05 pm
Location: The People's Republic of the U.S.S.A - My pronouns are 'Fuck You'-

Re: Religion, disease and the First Amendment

Postby iambiguous » Thu Dec 03, 2020 9:01 pm

obsrvr524 wrote: I can't believe I'm actually participating in an iambiguous thread. :-?


Well, with any luck -- for both of us -- human autonomy is a just an illusion and you are no less able to post your fiercely dogmatic objectivist crap than I am able to not read it.

iambiguous wrote:Well, the authority of the state rests on the actual existence of a government. The authority of a religion rests on the extent to which the ecclesiastics can convince their flocks to embrace a faith in the existence of their own God and not the hundreds and hundreds of others.


obsrvr524 wrote: Both organizations require the same kind of belief that they speak for the power that is. There is no significant difference in their means or methods except the modern Western religious means tend to exclude military force. You just like one more than the other - your subjective opinion.


Again, in regard to the OP, the Supremes are ruling on the actual policies of an actual government. The religious denominations that choose to ignore these policies in regard to the coronavirus, can worship and adore many different Gods, or different renditions of the same God. None, however, are able to demonstrate [to the best of my current knowledge] that their God does in fact exist in the manner in which most of us will accept that the government here does in fact exist.

I merely upped the ante by suggesting a "what if?"...what if the coronavirus was instead more like HIV in regard to symptioms, even more readily and stealthily transmitted and with no vaccine in sight. In other words, is there a level of crisis in which religious freedom might take a back seat to public health?

You'll either address that or you won't.

iambiguous wrote:my argument is that the "best of all possible worlds" politically is one that revolves around democracy and the rule of laws.


obsrvr524 wrote: And the "rule of law" is that religious worship is NOT to be prohibited from free exercise.

So by your own words, your argument for "best of all worlds" is that the religions are to be free to worship as they (subjectively) see fit.


This is just you twisting everything into a defense of your own authoritarian political dogmas. It's like those who are fanatics about their right to bear arms. They insist that they have the right to arm themselves as they see fit. Nuclear devices? Chemical and biological weapons? Tanks, rockets, surface to air missiles, grenades, artillery pieces? Well, the 2nd Amendment does note that part about a "well regulated Militia", but that doesn't mean that any government has any right to stop them from owning any weapons that they feel they need to protect themselves.

Same with freedom of speech. Not only can you yell "fire!" in a crowded theatre but if you believe the theatre is showing a Commie, pro-China propaganda film, your freedom of speech even permits you to burn the fucking thing to the ground.

Everything and anything revolves solely around "me, myself and I". Hell, they wrote the Constitution precisely with people like you in mind.

Didn't they?
He was like a man who wanted to change all; and could not; so burned with his impotence; and had only me, an infinitely small microcosm to convert or detest. John Fowles

Start here: viewtopic.php?f=1&t=176529
Then here: viewtopic.php?f=15&t=185296
And here: viewtopic.php?f=1&t=194382
User avatar
iambiguous
ILP Legend
 
Posts: 39788
Joined: Tue Nov 16, 2010 8:03 pm
Location: baltimore maryland

Re: Religion, disease and the First Amendment

Postby Peter Kropotkin » Thu Dec 03, 2020 9:13 pm

Zero_Sum wrote:Peter would be one of those Russian Bolsheviks closing down the Orthodox churches and banning religion in the public sphere under the state, am I right?


K: not at all... I hold to religion in the original sense of the word...
religion isn't this mass holding of meetings where one watches the preacher
preaching..... no, religion is a far more personal thing to me.....
I don't believe we should have one or two or a hundred of churches....

I hold that there should be 7.5 billion connections to religions.....

I hold that the entire point of religion is to connect to one's god,
individually... we should connect to god in a personal,
one on one affair.... one person connecting to god, in commune
with god, in the silence of one's own home....

where I take time, and I commune with god by myself...
religions is about one person personal connection to a god or gods.....

there shouldn't be hundreds of religions, but millions if not billions..
with every single person on planet earth connecting to god or gods,
in a personal commune with their god/gods....

religion is about one's personal relationship with one belief system..

the book of Job seems to me to be the highest communication we should
have with god.... one man, silently, alone, communicating with god, not
within a group context, but within a Kierkegaardian context....

facing god/gods alone and apart from others..... religion should be
individually and apart from all other people beliefs and context......

the most profound religious context is the one where we stand alone
with our god and professes our "truths" to them... it is a private
and silent matter to have a conversation with one's god.... in the privacy
of one's own home....

I want every single person on planet earth to connect to their god or
to their religion, privately and alone....that is the most profound way we
can connect with god.....

Kropotkin
PK IS EVIL.....
Peter Kropotkin
ILP Legend
 
Posts: 8924
Joined: Thu Apr 07, 2005 1:47 am
Location: blue state

Re: Religion, disease and the First Amendment

Postby Peter Kropotkin » Thu Dec 03, 2020 9:25 pm

iambiguous:

This is just you twisting everything into a defense of your own authoritarian political dogmas. It's like those who are fanatics about their right to bear arms. They insist that they have the right to arm themselves as they see fit. Nuclear devices? Chemical and biological weapons? Tanks, rockets, surface to air missiles, grenades, artillery pieces? Well, the 2nd Amendment does note that part about a "well regulated Militia", but that doesn't mean that any government has any right to stop them from owning any weapons that they feel they need to protect themselves.

Same with freedom of speech. Not only can you yell "fire!" in a crowded theatre but if you believe the theatre is showing a Commie, pro-China propaganda film, your freedom of speech even permits you to burn the fucking thing to the ground.

Everything and anything revolves solely around "me, myself and I". Hell, they wrote the Constitution precisely with people like you in mind.

Didn't they?[/quote]

K: and the argument really centers around the question of "who is right" and "who
gets to decide who is right"?

I hold that private citizens holding guns and other such destructive weapons
is an threat to my own personal safety... but the ones' who argue for private weapons
of destruction, hold their beliefs have more value then my beliefs by virtue of ?...

they have actually never brought their beliefs down to earth and engage in
why their beliefs have more value then my beliefs... their rights to weapons
is greater then my right to safety?.. but why? why do their beliefs get priority over
my beliefs?

they hold they can disenfranchise millions of people from their votes bases
upon their own, unproven, beliefs of voter fraud....again giving their beliefs
a higher priority then my own beliefs or upon millions of people votes....

why should we hold these right wing fanatics beliefs higher then our own beliefs?

show me the argument that we should hold some people beliefs higher then other
people beliefs?

Kropotkin
PK IS EVIL.....
Peter Kropotkin
ILP Legend
 
Posts: 8924
Joined: Thu Apr 07, 2005 1:47 am
Location: blue state

Re: Religion, disease and the First Amendment

Postby WendyDarling » Thu Dec 03, 2020 9:41 pm

obsrvr524 wrote:I can't believe I'm actually participating in an iambiguous thread. :-?

iambiguous wrote:Well, the authority of the state rests on the actual existence of a government. The authority of a religion rests on the extent to which the ecclesiastics can convince their flocks to embrace a faith in the existence of their own God and not the hundreds and hundreds of others.

Both organizations require the same kind of belief that they speak for the power that is. There is no significant difference in their means or methods except the modern Western religious means tend to exclude military force. You just like one more than the other - your subjective opinion.

iambiguous wrote:my argument is that the "best of all possible worlds" politically is one that revolves around democracy and the rule of laws.

And the "rule of law" is that religious worship is NOT to be prohibited from free exercise.

So by your own words, your argument for "best of all worlds" is that the religions are to be free to worship as they (subjectively) see fit.

iambiguous wrote:What if "one of them" has the power? Too problematic, right? Which is what the "spiritual" objectivists would make go away by insisting that their own rendition of the state would revolve around securing and then sustaining laws and policies entirely in sync with their own religious values.
obsrvr524 wrote:The US Constitution foresaw this situation long ago. The State will ALWAYS seek maximum power over people. By allowing a variety of religions (and it does require that a variety be permitted) neither the State nor any one religion can usurp total power over all people.

So in the US it is up to the religions to limit their own gatherings and up to the State to limit theirs. Neither has authority over the other.

Both will save people and both will cause death to people. That will never change.

You are constantly proposing this dilemma of "conflicting goods", subjectivism, dasein, and "what if they are wrong". The US Constitution seems to agree. The USC proclaims that NEITHER is ordained as (objectively) right or wrong.

So I don't see exactly what you are still whining about. Your opinion isn't being taken as more objectively true than theirs? You seem to be arguing with yourself about yourself - proliferating "dasein".

Pedro already proved that Biggie is both an objectivist and a hypocrite who condemns objectivists.
Member of The Coalition of Truth - member #2/2

"facts change all the time and not only that, they don't mean anything...."-Peter Kropotkin :evilfun:
"I can hope they have some degree of self-awareness but the facts suggest that
they don't..... "- Peter Kropotkin
. :evilfun:
"you don't know the value of facts and you don't know the value of the ‘TRUTH”... " -Peter Kropotkin :lol:
User avatar
WendyDarling
Heroine
 
Posts: 8311
Joined: Sat Sep 11, 2010 8:52 am
Location: Hades

Re: Religion, disease and the First Amendment

Postby iambiguous » Thu Dec 03, 2020 9:48 pm

WendyDarling wrote:Pedro already proved that Biggie is both an objectivist and a hypocrite who condemns objectivists.


:lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol:

Seriously though, she actually believes this.

On the other hand, I challenge her to respond to the OP...substantively?

Where does she draw the line between religious freedom and public health?
He was like a man who wanted to change all; and could not; so burned with his impotence; and had only me, an infinitely small microcosm to convert or detest. John Fowles

Start here: viewtopic.php?f=1&t=176529
Then here: viewtopic.php?f=15&t=185296
And here: viewtopic.php?f=1&t=194382
User avatar
iambiguous
ILP Legend
 
Posts: 39788
Joined: Tue Nov 16, 2010 8:03 pm
Location: baltimore maryland

Re: Religion, disease and the First Amendment

Postby obsrvr524 » Thu Dec 03, 2020 11:40 pm

iambiguous wrote:Seriously though, she actually believes this.

And very unlike you she is actually right.
Member of The Coalition of Truth - member #1

              You have been observed.
    Though often tempted to encourage a dog to distinguish color I refuse to argue with him about it
obsrvr524
Philosopher
 
Posts: 1836
Joined: Thu Jul 11, 2019 9:03 am

Re: Religion, disease and the First Amendment

Postby iambiguous » Fri Dec 04, 2020 12:48 am

obsrvr524 wrote:
iambiguous wrote:Seriously though, she actually believes this.

And very unlike you she is actually right.


Okay, then maybe she will respond to the points I raised with you:

iambiguous wrote:Well, the authority of the state rests on the actual existence of a government. The authority of a religion rests on the extent to which the ecclesiastics can convince their flocks to embrace a faith in the existence of their own God and not the hundreds and hundreds of others.


obsrvr524 wrote: Both organizations require the same kind of belief that they speak for the power that is. There is no significant difference in their means or methods except the modern Western religious means tend to exclude military force. You just like one more than the other - your subjective opinion.


Again, in regard to the OP, the Supremes are ruling on the actual policies of an actual government. The religious denominations that choose to ignore these policies in regard to the coronavirus, can worship and adore many different Gods, or different renditions of the same God. None, however, are able to demonstrate [to the best of my current knowledge] that their God does in fact exist in the manner in which most of us will accept that the government here does in fact exist.

I merely upped the ante by suggesting a "what if?"...what if the coronavirus was instead more like HIV in regard to symptioms, even more readily and stealthily transmitted and with no vaccine in sight. In other words, is there a level of crisis in which religious freedom might take a back seat to public health?

You'll either address that or you won't.

iambiguous wrote:my argument is that the "best of all possible worlds" politically is one that revolves around democracy and the rule of laws.


obsrvr524 wrote: And the "rule of law" is that religious worship is NOT to be prohibited from free exercise.

So by your own words, your argument for "best of all worlds" is that the religions are to be free to worship as they (subjectively) see fit.


This is just you twisting everything into a defense of your own authoritarian political dogmas. It's like those who are fanatics about their right to bear arms. They insist that they have the right to arm themselves as they see fit. Nuclear devices? Chemical and biological weapons? Tanks, rockets, surface to air missiles, grenades, artillery pieces? Well, the 2nd Amendment does note that part about a "well regulated Militia", but that doesn't mean that any government has any right to stop them from owning any weapons that they feel they need to protect themselves.

Same with freedom of speech. Not only can you yell "fire!" in a crowded theatre but if you believe the theatre is showing a Commie, pro-China propaganda film, your freedom of speech even permits you to burn the fucking thing to the ground.

Everything and anything revolves solely around "me, myself and I". Hell, they wrote the Constitution precisely with people like you in mind.

Didn't they?
He was like a man who wanted to change all; and could not; so burned with his impotence; and had only me, an infinitely small microcosm to convert or detest. John Fowles

Start here: viewtopic.php?f=1&t=176529
Then here: viewtopic.php?f=15&t=185296
And here: viewtopic.php?f=1&t=194382
User avatar
iambiguous
ILP Legend
 
Posts: 39788
Joined: Tue Nov 16, 2010 8:03 pm
Location: baltimore maryland

Next

Return to Current Events



Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users